I believe things should change in the Catholic Church but certainly not for some of the reasons already stated.

Well, I seem to recall that catholics are expressly prohibited from becoming an Australian Head of State as things currently stand.

Would anyone like to offer reasons as to why this is?

Why shouldn't the relevant parties involved in the cover up have their criminal records stamped with "Crime against Children?"

Having just successfully come through immigration processes it becomes more and more apparent that the people of Australia abhore these crimes and seek to protect children HOWEVER,

are we saying that under certain circumstances, that eligible catholics or others get an exemption from this?

..

Here again, a system where there is 1 set of rules for 1 group of people and another set of rules for another seems to be quite common in some parts of the world.

It's good that we have a non religious prime minister. That eliminates one bias. A catholic for GG what about a moslem.
Bring the church up to speed, so your deciples are not living in sin, as a course of daily life.

a579... it would be constitutionally and legally impossible to have a Muslim as GG or PM.

Why? read the treason act of 1351

A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they:

* "compassed or imagined" (i.e. planned) the death of the King, his wife or his eldest son and heir;

or the Treason Act (Australia) of 1995

Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code, contained in the schedule of the Criminal Code Act 1995, defines treason as follows:

"A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person:

(a) causes the death of the Sovereign, the heir apparent of the Sovereign, the consort of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(b) causes harm to the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister resulting in the death of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(c) causes harm to the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister, or imprisons or restrains the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(d) levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth; or
(e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:

(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared;

Note 'careeeefully' that last phrase of i)

Now..read Quran 9:29 and 9:30

http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp

I think you'll see why now.

AGIR:

You're beginning to sound like a broken record. And just quietly - do you realize that when you post - using caps - it comes across as shouting? - It is very off-putting.

Fundamentalists exist in all religions. In this context - we can understand suicide bombers. They are acting rationally according to their beliefs. So are the Christian "end-timers," who would bring on Armaggeddon today if they could. The point is that we have almost all moved on, and in a big way, since biblical times. It is commonplace that good historians (and most rational people) don't judge statements from past times by the standards of their own.